Universal benefits

[Hetairoi]

Any couple earning £86,000 a year do not need Child Benefit!

Once that has been accepted the problem is finding a level of earnings at which Child Benefit is needed.

Maybe anyone on less than the national average earnings should qualify.

The problem with the currently proposed changes is that the savings will be negligible and the cost of administering a means tested benefit will far outweigh any benefit gained!

 

[zebidee]

Considering a means testing element exists in Child Tax Credit, why not adapt that? How can it actually cost any more if the system already exists?

 

[tek-monkey]

What if getting child benefit takes you above the limit to get child benefit?

 

[Hetairoi]

Considering a means testing element exists in Child Tax Credit, why not adapt that? How can it actually cost any more if the system already exists?

If Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit were merged (which would make some sense) then that would save money but to introduce means testing to the Child Benefit system would cost more.

 

[Hetairoi]

What if getting child benefit takes you above the limit to get child benefit?

lol!

 

[zebidee]

Considering a means testing element exists in Child Tax Credit, why not adapt that? How can it actually cost any more if the system already exists?

If Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit were merged (which would make some sense) then that would save money but to introduce means testing to the Child Benefit system would cost more.

That makes sense to me, considering they wanted to take away Tax Credit in the same salary range anyway, why not smash the two together then figure out what to do? Minimum tax credits is something like £38 a month (give or take as it's calculated every 4 weeks), add the £80 to it, so £118 a month could then be awarded on a means tested basis?

 

[tek-monkey]

Why don't the gov just use this website to see what everyone is entitled to? Sure that'd be fine....

On a side note, I like the idea of making every benefit part of the same claim. That way you have one form, you fill in everything that is needed, and they just say what you are entitled to. Would be a lot easier surely, no point in having different departments for all people?

I'd also love to simplify the job of the CSA by automatically taking a percentage of one parents wage off them at the same time as tax to give to the other regardless of you being split up. This would not only mean fathers cannot escape paying for their offspring, it would also mean the mother has money to do the shopping etc. without waiting for the father to hand it over (or in case they spend it all on booze/gambling). If you are a happy stable family this won't be needed, but just hand it back to hubby if you feel like it. Oh look, 90% of all CSA work now done.

 

[db]

We are talking about people who are miffed because they may have to consider cancelling the monthly wine order though. Their kids will be devastated.

Are we?

yes

I see that generalisations work in every direction, if you earn less than 'average Joe' you're scroungers, if you earn more, you're greedy buggers, no accounting for individual situations or actual examples, (of which, I'm yet to see any).

i'm not sure how you managed to get all that from my one word reply..

being called a scrounger has nothing to do with how much you earn.. how much you scrounge dictates how much of a scrounger you are..

Why don't the gov just use this website to see what everyone is entitled to?

they could just use the mobile phone version

 

[Hetairoi]

Why don't the gov just use this website to see what everyone is entitled to? Sure that'd be fine....

On a side note, I like the idea of making every benefit part of the same claim. That way you have one form, you fill in everything that is needed, and they just say what you are entitled to. Would be a lot easier surely, no point in having different departments for all people?

I'd also love to simplify the job of the CSA by automatically taking a percentage of one parents wage off them at the same time as tax to give to the other regardless of you being split up. This would not only mean fathers cannot escape paying for their offspring, it would also mean the mother has money to do the shopping etc. without waiting for the father to hand it over (or in case they spend it all on booze/gambling). If you are a happy stable family this won't be needed, but just hand it back to hubby if you feel like it. Oh look, 90% of all CSA work now done.

My wife earns more than me so would she have money deducted from her pay to be paid to me?

 

[tek-monkey]

The one drawback is deciding who is the 'resident' parent. For tax reasons I'd guess you'd want that to be the lower earner, if it came out before tax.

Hmm, should you be taxed on it? I guess it should be 'paid' to the other parent meaning it comes out of their tax, but that could open a whole other tax dodge.

 

[Withnail]

]
I see that generalisations work in every direction, if you earn less than 'average Joe' you're scroungers, if you earn more, you're greedy buggers, no accounting for individual situations or actual examples, (of which, I'm yet to see any).

I was being a bit facetious but, to generalise, it's difficult to see how the loss of £20 to £30 a week could seriously affect the household budget of a family with an annual income of £44,000 +.

I am a great believer in the Welfare State and think it is something of which we should be justifiably proud. Take the circumstances that Jade-clothing outlined above - that is precisely what it's for.

People aren't greedy buggers for receiving a universal benefit as they are ipso facto entitled to them. It does seem a bit rich for higher earners to cry foul for losing them in the context of our current situation.

 

[shoes]

The idea of a universal benefit is absurd in the first instance.

 

[zebidee]

You know what's interesting though?

"Playing around with the numbers (sorry you can’t keep a good accountant down) you more or less double the financial benefit by including people earning £50,000 to £70,000 – that’s the problem. In order to make a meaningful financial impact you need to include the middle earners and you are going to hit those in the £50,000 to £70,000 band much much harder than you are going to impact those earning over £70,000. There are roughly speaking the same number of people earning £50,000 to £70,000 as there are earning from £70,000 upwards." (link to source later)

So, in that £20,000 gap there are the same amount of people as earn £70,000 or greater Quite shocking in a way if you consider how MUCH money some individuals can earn.

There's a couple of 'mommy bloggers' who've taken this on, and a lot of it does seem like moaning about losing privilege, but still an interesting read in some cases, especially if you check the comments. Anyone have an opinion on whether this is something women might be more passionate about than men anyway?

Mommy Blog 1

Mommy Blog 2

Mommy Blog 3 (which links the first two)

Enjoy, don't troll too much cos I imagine it'll only get deleted by the repective blog owners.

 

[zebidee]

People aren't greedy buggers for receiving a universal benefit as they are ipso facto entitled to them. It does seem a bit rich for higher earners to cry foul for losing them in the context of our current situation.

Fair points, I do wonder, however if there aren't better places to penalise? Seeing as everyone's just come through a recession and all

 

[Withnail]

The idea of a universal benefit is absurd in the first instance.

My understanding of it is that it was a way of selling the idea of a Welfare State to an unconvinced middle class - they were receiving that that they were paying into - an early attempt to get everyone to see themselves as 'stakeholders'.

Child benefit/allowance was an obvious choice seeing as, apart from the occasional freak of nature, the desire to have children is one of the few areas in which we truly are 'all in this together'.

 

[shoes]

apart from the occasional freak of nature, the desire to have children is one of the few areas in which we truly are 'all in this together'.

That'd be me then! I certainly have no desire to have children - i acknowledge I would be a crap parent.

 

[Miss Red]

If i was earning 44k a year, i would gladly give up my £20 a week child benefit.
I cant understand how these people, who moan about losing it, cant manage!

I used to know someone (only one person in a lifetime lol) - who used to earn £2000 a week, She used to say you live to what you earn, therefore was spending gut wrenching amounts on shopping in sainsburys and buying fresh salmon and other exotic stuff, The cupboard always overfloweth lol.

I have to buy cheaply, but even if i earned that much id have better things to do with teh money than eat salmon lol (no offence to any salmon lovers on here lol)

 

[Trumpet]

apart from the occasional freak of nature, the desire to have children is one of the few areas in which we truly are 'all in this together'.

That'd be me then! I certainly have no desire to have children

+1
thought the phrase "freak of nature" was a bit strong though.

 

[Hetairoi]

If such a diverse bunch as we are on this forum can generally agree what is wrong and what needs to be done why on earth can't those morons in Westminster get it right?

Perhaps David Cameron should join Stafford Forum!

 

[Withnail]

apart from the occasional freak of nature, the desire to have children is one of the few areas in which we truly are 'all in this together'.

That'd be me then! I certainly have no desire to have children

+1
thought the phrase "freak of nature" was a bit strong though.

Thought you'd enjoy that one.